religious language Flashcards
What does cognitive mean?
Factual claim; can be known + checked for being true or false
What does non cognitive mean?
Not meant to be known or factual
More just a metaphor/expression
Which scholars believed religious language is meaningless?
Karl Popper, Antony Flew, A.J Ayer
Which scholars believed religious language is meaningful?
John Hick, Hare, Wittgenstein, Aquinas, Pseudo-Dionysius + Maimonides, Tillich
What principle did A.J Ayer come up w?
Verification principle
What did the verification principle claim?
R.L is meaningless bc there’s no evidence to support (synthetic) + they’re not true by definition (analytic)
What example can we use for the verification principle?
The statement ‘my car is parked outside’ can be checked by going out + seeing to verify the statement
What does A.J Ayer say in his book?
Theism + atheism are nonsense bc neither can be proved on the basis of evidence
God is metaphysical so isn’t discoverable or describable
When did Ayer believe a statement is only meaningful?
Analytic (true by def.) OR
Synthetic (empirically verifiable)
What is the Verification principle not about?
Whether a statement is true or false: but whether its meaningful
Who gives the parable of the gardener?
Flew
What is verification in practice? Give an example
When there’s direct sense experience to support a statement
‘Theres a dragon next door’ = meaningful
Bc it can be checked by looking next door
What’s verification in principle? Give an example
When we know how a statement can be tested empirically
‘There’s intelligence life elsewhere’ = meaningful
Bc we know what we need to do to test it
What did Ayer say about meaningfulness when applied to statements about God?
‘God exists’/’God loves’ etc is meaningless bc it can’t be verified in principle or practice: theres no evidence + theres no way to know how to test
What are 3 strengths of A.J Ayer’s verification principle?
- Straightforward
- Aligns w science
- Encourages clear use of language; some religious claims are obscure
What are 2 weaknesses of A.J Ayer’s verification principle?
- Straightforward doesn’t make it right - many are convinced that human responses to the world (philosophy + ethics) are important
- Makes the assumption that science tells us everything important in the world
What are 2 OTHER weaknesses of A.J. Ayer’s verification principle?
- Some statements about religion aren’t any more irrational than any other scientific assumptions
- V.P. principle itself is meaningless bc it’s not empirically verifiable
Which scholar’s (2) go w falsification principle?
Karl Popper + Antony Flew
What did Popper argue?
Science works primarily through falsification than verification
A good scientist tries to falsify their data
When did Popper say we can show smth as meaningful?
When it can be falsified
Why would statements about God be meaningless acc to Popper?
Bc they’re not falsifiable
What parable does Flew give?
Parable of the gardener
What does the parable of the gardener prove?
That anytime you try to disprove God’s existence, a theist will always have a response
What does Flew’s parable mean in terms of falsification?
You can’t falsify statements about God bc a theist wouldn’t let you; so they’re meaningless
Who does Flew draw upon in the falsification principle?
Karl Popper
What is a strength of the falsification principle?
Flew shows the approach of some religious believers to beliefs - they refuse to take challenges to beliefs + just find excuses
What is a weakness of Flew’s falsification principle?
The prob of evil makes many theists question/lose their faith
Which scholar goes w the Eschatological verification principle?
John Hick
What was Hick’s main point in his theory? Who was this in response to?
Response to A.J Ayer
We will be able to verify God’s existence - just after death
What does Hick’s eschatological verification mean?
Claims about God won’t be verified now, but eschatologically (at the end of time)
What parable does Hick give?
Parable of the celestial city
What is the point of the parable of the celestial city?
We’ll all reach the same place; but the journey is the important bit
What are 3 strengths of Hick’s eschatological verification?
- Claims that heaven is a real possibility - appeals to theists
- Support of the view that religious claims are cognitive
- Whenever we describe an experience, we’re interpreting it
What are 2 weaknesses of Hick’s eschatological verification?
- Doesn’t mean its true - atheists would dismiss it
- It’s a statement that’ll be verified IF true but can’t be falsified
Which scholar goes w Religious language as an expression of a blik?
Hare
What parable does Hare give?
Parable of the lunatic
What does Hare’s parable of the lunatic tell us?
Nothing can disprove what the lunatic believes; this is a blik
What are bliks?
A view of the world that we may derive from those around us (like a superstition)
What is a religious blik?
A common + powerful view that is often difficult to disprove to theists
What was the difference in what Flew and Hare believed about religious statements?
FLEW - religious statement are assertions about the world + are intended to be cognitive
HARE - religious statements are bliks which are non cognitive but are an interpretation
What was the difference is what Hare + Flew believed about religious believers?
FLEW - religious believers allow nothing to count against their cog belief so religious statements are non-falsifiable + meaningless
HARE - religious blik are non-falsifiable BUT theyre meaningful
What was the quote from Flew about qualifications?
Religious statements die the death of a thousand qualifications
What’s a strength of Hare’s argument?
Explains why there are diff factual claims in different religions
What’s a weakness of Hare’s argument?
Makes religion subjective bc it depends on how you see smth
What did Wittgenstein propose?
Language games
What did Wittgenstein say about language?
Meaning is usage
Words gain meaning based on how they’re used - context is important
What are language games?
Language creates diff meaning in diff situations
What Wittgenstein say about the word ‘God’?
Its not an object
Its a word used in religious context
What are 2 strengths of Wittgenstein’s language games?
- Allows a range of meaning for language
- Allows religious statements to be ‘belief in’
What are 2 weaknesses of language games?
- It’s impossible to enter into debate w someone coming from another lang game (atheism)
- Most religious believers think their statements are cognitive
What did Aquinas propose?
Religious language as analogical
What does Aquinas reject?
Univocal (the same thing each time) and equivocal (means diff things in diff situations) language
What’s Aquinas’ analogy of attribution?
Its possible to say smth about God
We can say God is good, wise etc
What’s the example of the bull for Aquinas’ analogy of attribution?
Bull is healthy; bulls urine is healthy
If the bull isn’t healthy, the urine won’t be healthy
What is the example of Vanessa for Aquinas’ analogy of attribution?
God is good; Vanessa is good
God created Vanessa (like how the bull created the urine) so God is causally responsible for Vanessa’s goodness
What’s Aquinas’ analogy of proportionality?
Humans have the power to do things + God has the power to do things, but God’s power is proportionality greater than humans power
What is Aquinas basically saying about religious language?
It’s still meaningful if you say smth but don’t have to explain it
What are 3 strengths of Aquinas’ analogical language?
- Gets rid of the prob of anthropomorphising God
- Analogy helps explain God
- Analogies are based on human experience + is cognitive
What are 2 weaknesses of Aquinas’ analogical language?
- God is unknowable so what we say is limited
- Same approach could be used to argue negative aspects of God ‘God is evil’
Who are the scholars for via negativa?
Pseudo-Dionysius + Maimondes
What did Pseudo-Dionysius develop Via negativa for?
Emphasise God’s transcendence + separates him from any literal description that limits him
What is Via negativa?
God is somehow known, yet remains unknowable
We know God but he remains beyond knowledge
What does via negativa say we can’t do?
We can’t talk about God w out lang wo demising him
What does Maimonides say about God?
Saying God is powerful means he is being compared to humans power; reducing him to smth measurable
What are 3 strengths about via negativa?
- Avoid making God a ‘thing’
- Avoids anthropomorphism
What are 3 weaknesses of via negativa?
- Leaves humanity w the inability to understand/say anything about God
- How can we worship a God we know nothing about?
- Via negativa goes against Bible
Which scholar goes w religious language as symbolic?
Tillich
What does Tillich say about symbols + God?
Symbols are associated w things like how God is associated w things (like king)
What does Tillich say symbols contain? Give example
Contain in itself what it reps (e.g. American flag contains pride + dignity)
